HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

LAU MOON-TONG v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
5114-EN-1978-06-17

LAU MOON-TONG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000519/1978

 

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
 1978 No.519

 

BETWEEN:  
 LAU Moon-tongAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 17th June, 1978

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to careless driving and to driving a vehicle with two defective front tyres. One was described as "bald" and the other as badly worn. He was fined $100 for the first offence and $200 for the second. In addition, he was disqualified from driving for six months on the defective tyres charge. He appealed against the order of disqualification.

2. The appellant was employed as a driver and the vehicle that he was driving when he committed the offences with which he was charged belonged to his employer. He was in a dilemma because if he refused to drive his employer's vehicle he faced dismissal by his employer. On the other hand, by driving the vehicle with defective tyres he laid himself open to prosecution.

3. It is unusual to disqualify a person found guilty of driving a vehicle with defective tyres but I do not think it wrong in principle. However, I have some sympathy for the appellant in view of the dilemma with which he was faced. I think justice will best be done if I allow this appeal against sentence to the effect that the disqualification be lifted as from to-day's date (June 17th, 1978).

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Alderdice for the Crown/Respondent